__________

“What if the biggest obstacle to women’s maturity today isn’t patriarchy — but a culture that keeps us comfortable too long?”

__________

Joseph Campbell’s monomyth, the Hero’s Journey, distills thousands of years of storytelling across cultures into a universal pattern of transformation. Its three main phases—Departure, Initiation, and Return—map the movement from the ordinary world, through the crucible of trials, and back with hard-won wisdom.

In The Womanomyth, this ancient pattern illuminates a distinctly modern path for women. Historically, women often matured early, taking on responsibility, agency, and real-world accountability at younger ages. Today’s culture encourages the opposite: many women are gently steered into the protected role of daughter well into adulthood and sometimes beyond. Romantic ideals, chivalric expectations, Disney-style princess narratives, and a society that rewards perpetual emotional centrality all work to extend childhood-stage comfort long past its usefulness.

If the heroine’s journey is not undertaken, the ordinary world becomes one of extended comfort that quietly kills her potential to flourish. Institutions, media, social norms, and romantic scripts gently — and sometimes insistently — reinforce the idea that women should be protected, endlessly validated, and kept at the emotional center of life. In this environment, initiative, discomfort, and mature accountability are treated as optional and often discouraged. The heroine’s journey begins the moment a woman senses that this extended protection, while comfortable, is stunting her growth. She recognizes that remaining in this extended comfort no longer serves her deeper potential.

This is not a collective revolution but an individual exodus. What follows is her departure from the familiar nursery of gendered expectations, her initiation through trials of self-discovery, and her return as a sovereign woman grounded in agency, responsibility, and a mature appreciation of shared human value with men and women alike.

Note on adaptations: While Campbell’s monomyth includes notable female heroes (such as Psyche), it is primarily framed around male protagonists. In The Womanomyth, several stages have been thoughtfully adjusted to better reflect a feminine journey — for example, “Atonement with the Father” becomes “Atonement with the Mother,” and the traditional “Woman as Temptress” is reframed as “Fawning Men as Tempters.” These changes preserve the core structure and wisdom of the Hero’s Journey while making it more resonant for modern women.

DEPARTURE

1. The Call to Adventure: Acknowledging Something Is Wrong

The Call to Adventure arrives as an insistent inner voice or external shock that shatters the comfortable illusion of the ordinary world. In Campbell’s terms, a herald appears—something that cannot be ignored—and summons the heroine onto the path of exploration.

For the modern woman, this herald often comes through quiet disillusionment. She may notice the hollowness beneath the validation and protection, the growing restrictiveness and boredom of being perpetually cared for, or the subtle shame that surfaces when she sees how this enculturation has strained relationships with men, family, and friends. The comforting modern script — romantic ideals, chivalric rescue, and cultural messages that keep her in the role of cherished daughter — begins to feel suffocating rather than safe.

She senses that remaining in this protected role, where agency is optional and accountability is softened, has quietly stunted her growth. The discrepancy becomes too stark to dismiss: she has been told she is strong and independent, yet she sometimes feels fragile, directionless, or emotionally immature. Something feels profoundly wrong. This Call forces the uncomfortable question: If my needs are endlessly accommodated yet I remain dissatisfied, what is my actual worth beyond the role of cherished receiver?

Many women try to mute the Call with distraction, more affirmation, pampering, or renewed demands for protection. But once truly heard, it cannot be unheard. The journey toward authentic feminine maturity and adult agency has begun.

2. Refusal of the Call: Bubble-Wrap Paralysis

Joseph Campbell described the refusal with unflinching clarity: the summons is ignored, and the adventure turns negative. The subject becomes walled in boredom and “culture,” losing the power of significant action while awaiting slow disintegration.

In the Womanomyth, this refusal appears as Bubble-Wrap Paralysis. The woman has sensed the Call — the quiet dissatisfaction beneath her comfortable life — yet turns away. She doubles down on the familiar script: seeking constant reassurance, avoiding discomfort, and remaining wrapped in layers of emotional safety, chivalric protection, and social approval. Comfortably insulated inside romantic narratives and cultural messages that encourage her to stay comfortably dependent, she tells herself that staying within these known boundaries will eventually bring fulfillment.

Her identity has become deeply fused with this zone of safety. The fear of losing comfort, facing uncertainty, or stepping into full adult agency keeps her frozen. She maintains the very environment that shields her, choosing the reassurance of familiar protections over the terror of real growth and accountability. Life gradually becomes a slow wasteland of superficiality and unfulfilled potential. Many women remain here until a harsher Call finally breaks through.

3. Supernatural Aid: Wise Old Man or Woman Provides Advice and Guidance

Joseph Campbell writes: “For those who have not refused the call, the first encounter of the hero-journey is with a protective figure… who provides the adventurer with amulets against the dragon forces he is about to pass.”

In the Womanomyth, this protective figure rarely appears as a literal wizard. Instead, the heroine encounters the voice of a wise old man or woman — sometimes a living mentor, more often the resurrected words of clear-sighted thinkers, authors, or elders who saw beyond the prolonged comforts of the modern daughter role long before her. These guides offer honest maps and gentle but firm truths precisely when the dragons of social approval, chivalric protection, and familiar romantic narratives begin to circle.

Their wisdom serves as the first true amulet. It gently challenges the illusions of perpetual safety and emotional centrality, helping her see the cost of remaining in extended childhood. Armed with their clarity, she steps forward no longer disoriented, but carrying distilled insight from those who have walked the path of mature agency ahead of her. Whether through a trusted elder, a perceptive book, or an awakened voice that cuts through the noise, this supernatural aid reassures her that she does not walk the unfamiliar path alone. The journey deepens.

4. Crossing the First Threshold: Establishment Fearmongering Designed to “Keep a Woman in Her Place”

Joseph Campbell describes the threshold guardians who stand at the boundary of the known world, warning the hero of danger beyond. Popular belief gives every reason to fear the first step into the unexplored. He writes, quote:

“With the personifications of his destiny to guide and aid him, the hero goes forward in his adventure until he comes to the ‘threshold guardian’ at the entrance to the zone of magnified power… Beyond them is darkness, the unknown, and danger; just as beyond the parental watch is danger to the infant and beyond the protection of his society danger to the member of the tribe. The usual person is more than content, he is even proud, to remain within the indicated bounds, and popular belief gives him every reason to fear so much as the first step into the unexplored.”

In the Womanomyth, these guardians wear familiar modern faces: media voices, social institutions, wellness influencers, and peer networks. As the woman, newly armed with honest guidance, attempts to step beyond the zone of prolonged safety and comfort, the establishment unleashes its warnings: “You’ll be alone forever.” “Going your own way instead of staying with consensus is selfish.” “Without constant protections and validation, you’ll fail or regret it.”

The threats are rarely subtle: loss of social approval, accusations of internalized misogyny, or ostracism from familiar circles. These “monsters of the deep” can feel like pressures designed to keep her centered in the familiar nursery of expectations.

The true heroine crosses anyway. She recognizes these guardians as desperate sentinels of a limiting paradigm. Beyond the threshold lies uncertainty, but also magnified power: reclaimed agency, the development of real accountability, and the possibility of genuine maturity. Crossing demands courage. The open path of authentic womanhood awaits.

5. Belly of the Whale: Swallowed into the Unknown Margins of Society

Joseph Campbell explains this pivotal moment: “The hero… is swallowed into the unknown, and would appear to have died.”

In the Womanomyth, once she crosses the first threshold and defies the fearmongering, the heroine is not met with celebration but with engulfment. To the world that celebrated her as the cherished daughter, she has effectively disappeared. Friends and family may label her cold, selfish, or “lost,” while the broader culture writes her off as someone who has rejected her proper place. She finds herself in the quiet margins — living with less automatic protection, fewer excuses, and no guaranteed deference.

This is the dark womb of rebirth. Stripped of her former insulation, she begins the slow process of digestion: breaking down old narratives of perpetual vulnerability and learning to accept accountability for her own actions and their impact on others. Discomforts and failures can no longer be automatically blamed on failed caregivers or external protectors. In this symbolic death, old patterns of entitlement dissolve and the raw material for a more responsible, self-authored woman begins to form.

INITIATION

6. Road of Trials: More Establishment Forces Test the Heroine

Joseph Campbell writes: “Once having traversed the threshold, the hero moves in a dream landscape of curiously fluid, ambiguous forms, where he must survive a succession of trials.”

In the Womanomyth, the Road of Trials strikes with new intensity. Having stepped beyond the zone of prolonged comfort, the heroine now faces repeated tests from establishment forces: social pressure to return to familiar roles, loss of easy validation, and the daily challenge of maintaining discipline when no one is cushioning her path. Relational aggression looms among women; female friend groups, in particular, can sometimes respond with tension when she prioritizes her own growth without seeking the group’s permission, guidance, or collective approval.

Campbell illustrates this stage with the figure of Psyche in Roman mythology. After being cast out and separated from her beloved, Psyche is given a series of seemingly impossible tasks by the jealous goddess Venus. She must sort a vast, chaotic heap of mixed grains and seeds before nightfall; collect golden wool from dangerous wild sheep whose bites are poisonous; fetch water from a freezing, dragon-guarded spring high on an inaccessible mountain; and finally descend into the underworld itself to retrieve a box of supernatural beauty. Each task feels insurmountable. Yet through humility, resourcefulness, and unexpected aid Psyche completes them all.

These trials strip away remaining illusions. Like Psyche, the modern heroine learns to carry real responsibility instead of emotional outsourcing and group conformity, and to face consequences without defaulting to familiar defense mechanisms. Old patterns of dependency are challenged. Yet through these fires, she also discovers unexpected strengths—resilience, clearer thinking, and a growing sense of authentic agency. The wisdom she carries acts as both map and shield. Small wins begin to accumulate. She is no longer merely surviving the tests—she is slowly learning how to thrive as a mature woman on her own terms.

7. Meeting a Masculine Soul Guide: The Animus Figure Who Acknowledges and Encourages

Joseph Campbell describes this encounter as the triumphant hero-soul entering a mystical marriage with a divine figure — typically a goddess in his examples. For the Womanomyth, this figure appears as a god or holy masculine guide. This meeting, he says, occurs at the nadir, the zenith, or the very edge of existence — within the deepest chamber of the heart.

This encounter often arrives after a low point in the trials. Its most important form is internal: an awakened masculine principle within her own psyche, steady and clear-eyed, that stops narrating her as fragile or in need of rescue. Where old scripts offered pedestalization or protection, this inner voice offers something plainer — the assumption that she can bear weight.

Sometimes this principle finds a mirror in an actual man. When it does, he does not coddle or flatter her into old patterns; he simply treats her competence as unremarkable, her respect of boundaries as legitimate, her accountability as expected rather than exceptional. But the relationship, if one exists, is confirmation of a shift that already happened inside her — not the origin of it. She does not need him to arrive for the shift to hold. For the first time, she may experience masculine energy as supportive rather than something to manipulate or fear.

This meeting can be with a real man, a profound inner dialogue, or both. It establishes a new standard—respect earned rather than demanded, boundaries honored without negotiation, accountability modeled without shame. It heals old wounds and reignites vital feminine energy—an essential waypoint on the path toward integrated womanhood.

8. Fawning Men as Tempters: Simps, or Fathers Who Call Her Back To Being a Coddled Princess

In Campbell’s framework, after meeting the Goddess, the hero encounters the Temptress — the archetype of worldly seduction that threatens to derail the quest.

In the Womanomyth, the tempters appear as fawning men who offer endless emotional labor, and unconditional approval in exchange for her returning to the familiar role of cherished center—a role that quietly grants them influence and control over her life. Some do it through flattery, the endless attention, deference, the promise that she’ll never have to carry weight alone again. Fathers or father-figures may also tempt her, urging her back toward the safety of being looked after in princess-like comfort, still loved, and still small. “You don’t have to do this the hard way,” the pull seems to say. “Let me handle it.”

The offer is seductive precisely because it’s real relief — restored ease, restored social comfort, an exit from the discomfort of the Road of Trials. And it costs her the thing she just earned: the sense that her own judgment is sufficient, and that she doesn’t need to be rescued to be safe.

The true heroine feels the pull and does not pretend otherwise. She simply doesn’t take the deal. What she’s protecting isn’t her isolation — it’s her authorship. Passing this trial doesn’t harden her against connection; it clarifies what kind of connection she’s willing to accept going forward.

9. Atonement with the Mother: Becoming One With The Feminine Principle

In Joseph Campbell’s monomyth, atonement with the father involves reconciling with the deep masculine principle. In the Womanomyth, the parallel moment is Atonement with the Mother.

The heroine stops viewing the mother-principle as something to rebel against or remain dependent upon. She no longer sees mature femininity as an oppressive or outdated force, nor does she cling to a childish version of it. Instead, she recognizes the positive mother archetype—generative, nurturing, resilient, and accountable—as a model she can now consciously embody. This is not necessarily reconciliation with her literal mother, though that reckoning often runs alongside it—it’s reconciliation with the principle of mature femininity itself.

As Nancy Friday explored in My Mother, Myself, this often requires facing the complex mix of love, anger, competition, and identification that daughters carry toward their mothers and also aunts, teachers, and other early models of what a grown woman is allowed to be. Working through these feelings allows the heroine to release old patterns of blame and emotional outsourcing.

This integration dissolves the false binary of eternal daughter versus rejecting mother. She releases old resentments and steps into greater personal responsibility for herself and toward others. The result is transformative: she realizes the triune goddess archetype — Daughter, Mother, and Crone — not as separate external figures to be projected outward, but as integrated aspects within one awakened woman. No longer at war with her own feminine depth, she moves forward with clarity, maturity, and authentic feminine authority.

10. Apotheosis: The Heroine Becomes the Realized Woman

In Joseph Campbell’s monomyth, Apotheosis is the moment of profound transformation. The heroine undergoes a symbolic death and rebirth, transcending her former limited self. She achieves a divine-like state — an expansion of consciousness where the boundaries between human and transcendent dissolve.

Campbell illustrates this stage with the Bodhisattva Kwan Yin (Kwannon) of China and Japan — the compassionate “regarder of the world” who attains enlightenment yet chooses to remain on the threshold of Nirvana, postponing her own final release to help all beings. As Campbell writes:

“She is blessed alike to the simple and to the wise; for behind her vow there lies a profound intuition, world-redeeming, world-sustaining. The pause on the threshold of Nirvana, the resolution to forego until the end of time (which never ends) immersion in the untroubled pool of eternity, represents a realization that the distinction between eternity and time is only apparent—made, perforce, by the rational mind, but dissolved in the perfect knowledge of the mind that has transcended the pairs of opposites. What is understood is that time and eternity are two aspects of the same experience-whole, two planes of the same nondual ineffable.”

In the Womanomyth, this stage marks the point where the heroine becomes unbound by her former fears of accountability and higher values. The terror of social disapproval, loss of special protections, and the discomfort of genuine responsibility falls away. She now possesses the inner keys to live with self-respect and respect for others — no longer needing to be the emotional center, but standing as a mature participant in shared humanity.

This is her apotheosis: a quiet expansion into authentic womanhood. Like the compassionate Bodhisattva Kwan Yin, who remains on the threshold to help others, the heroine partakes in the divine energies of compassion and wisdom. She draws on the strength, wisdom, and nurturing power of archetypal wise women and other spiritual icons who embody mature sovereignty. Freed from the need to externalize blame or cling to entitlement, she operates from her own center. She has become what she was always capable of being — a woman of integrity, resilience, and grace.

The heroine does not float above humanity; she becomes the fullest expression of self-mastered womanhood. Freed from illusion, she walks the earth with quiet spiritual authority — mistress of her domain, creator of her own meaning, and bearer of hard-won light.

11. The Ultimate Boon: Absolute Freedom

Joseph Campbell illustrates this moment with the classic example of the Buddha:

“The Buddha’s victory beneath the Bo Tree is the classic Oriental example of this deed. With the sword of his mind he pierced the bubble of the universe—and it shattered into nought. The whole world of natural experience, as well as the continents, heavens, and hells of traditional religious belief, exploded—together with their gods and demons. But the miracle of miracles was that though all exploded, all was nevertheless thereby renewed, revivified, and made glorious with the effulgence of true being.”

In the Womanomyth, the Ultimate Boon is the hard-won mindset of absolute female sovereignty. After enduring the trials and integrating the mature mother-principle, the heroine pierces the bubble of prolonged childhood conditioning. The myths of perpetual vulnerability, endless entitlement, and moral exemption dissolve. What once felt like unassailable reality loses its power over her.

Yet this is not destruction — it is renewal. The same world, relationships, and cultural scripts still exist, but they no longer define her worth or dictate her behavior. She is free. No longer driven by the need for constant validation or protection, she lives from her own center. Her time, energy, choices, and moral responsibility belong to her. She has claimed the ultimate boon: the unshakeable knowledge that she is enough as a sovereign individual, seeking mutual respect and shared humanity among men and women alike.

RETURN

12. Refusal of Return: Does Not Want to Waste Her Wisdom on the Ignorant

Joseph Campbell notes that even after winning the boon, many heroes hesitate to return. The responsibility of bringing wisdom back into the world is frequently refused.

In the Womanomyth, this refusal appears as a sharp withdrawal. Having attained the mindset of absolute female sovereignty, the heroine now feels reluctant to re-enter ordinary life. She thinks, “They won’t understand,” “It’s not worth the effort,” or “Why should I share this with people still trapped in the old script if they’ll just attack me for it?” She may retreat into solitude, intellectual isolation, or elitist detachment, choosing to withhold her hard-won insights rather than risk misunderstanding or rejection.

While understandable after the long journey, this refusal keeps her boon locked away. True sovereignty includes the freedom to return — or not — on her own terms, without bitterness. The woman who remains permanently withdrawn possesses the wisdom but withholds its light. The full heroic cycle remains incomplete until she is willing to consider how (and with whom) her transformation might serve a larger good.

13. Magic Flight: The Otherworld Pursues Its Own

Joseph Campbell describes the Magic Flight as the lively, often tense stage in which the hero, carrying the boon, must skillfully navigate re-entry while the otherworld tries to pull him back.

In the Womanomyth, the Magic Flight is the heroine’s attempt to reintegrate into ordinary society after her long immersion in the margins. She carries the mindset of absolute female sovereignty, yet discovers that the world of initiation does not easily release her. The rarer insightful men and women who once guided her may now resent her departure. They might accuse her of “selling out,” “softening,” or dismiss her as a “traitor to women” for daring to re-engage with the broader world.

Old social circles may test her with subtle pressure to return to familiar roles — of Disney girlhood, pampered tradwife, or a feminism that asks her to substitute grievance for agency. Her flight becomes a graceful dance of boundaries and discernment. Armed with inner clarity, she moves between worlds lightly — revealing only what serves, maintaining strong limits, and refusing to be pulled back into either superficial comfort or permanent isolation. This phase teaches her how to live in the world without being of it, carrying her sovereignty with quiet confidence as she finds her place in society once more.

14. Rescue from Without: The Old World Calls Her Back

Joseph Campbell writes that sometimes the hero must be brought back from the supernatural adventure by assistance from without. The world itself comes knocking.

In the Womanomyth, the Rescue from Without arrives when ordinary life — family, friends, colleagues, or even perceptive men and women — reaches out to draw the sovereign heroine back among them. After the profound peace of her solitary integration, she may feel little urgency to re-engage. The comfort of independence and clarity is deeply satisfying.

Yet the world senses the depth she now carries. People notice her calm confidence, clear boundaries, and quiet maturity. Old connections reappear with invitations, opportunities arise, or loved ones simply ask her to be present again. This “rescue,” when accepted, becomes conscious integration. She steps back into relationships and society selectively, no longer from need or old programming, but from the fullness of her own sovereignty. She returns not as a receiver, but as a mature participant ready to give and receive on equal terms.

15. Crossing the Return Threshold

Joseph Campbell captures the difficulty of this stage: the two worlds — the divine and the human — are actually one. The returning hero must now represent eternity in time and accept the banalities of ordinary life after the soul-satisfying vision of transformation.

In the Womanomyth, Crossing the Return Threshold is the heroine’s deliberate integration of her hard-won sovereignty back into daily existence. She installs her new wisdom as a permanent operating system: calm accountability, mutual respect, emotional self-regulation, and a balanced view prioritizing shared human value between men and women.

Old habits of prolonged adolescence and emotional outsourcing lose their grip. Discomfort now triggers ownership instead of blame. If she chooses, she shares her insights with other women still trapped in the old matrix — not as a missionary, but through quiet example and honest words. This crossing is subtle and ongoing. She walks between kingdoms now revealed as one: fully sovereign, translating the freedom of her inner journey into the language of everyday mature womanhood.

16. Master of Two Worlds: Freedom Between Solitude and Society

Joseph Campbell describes the Master of Two Worlds as the ‘Cosmic Dancer’ who moves lightly between the perspective of time and the deep causal realm, without contaminating the principles of one with the other.

In the Womanomyth, this stage marks the fully realized sovereign woman who moves freely between two realities: the deep peace of enlightened solitude and the ordinary social world. She can withdraw into quiet self-renewal without guilt, then re-enter relationships, work, and community on her own terms. She is neither hermit nor constant participant — she is the graceful dancer.

This mastery brings immense freedom. She enjoys rich solitude for clarity and strength, then engages warmly with others when it serves mutual value. No longer pulled by old needs for validation or protection, she maintains strong boundaries while remaining open to genuine connection. She has become whole: capable of deep independence and meaningful interdependence, grounded in self-respect and respect for others. The fluid movement between worlds is the living expression of her completed journey.

17. Freedom to Live

Freedom to Live is the culmination of the Womanomyth — the liberated state in which the heroine finally dwells completely in the present moment. Yesterday’s grievances, old patterns of dependency, and former identities no longer chain her. Tomorrow’s anxieties lose their grip. The trials, the integration of accountability, and the mastery of both solitude and society have burned away neurotic attachment to outcomes.

She now lives lightly yet powerfully. Relationships are enjoyed without desire for manipulation or need for constant validation. Work and purpose are pursued with clarity rather than performance. Time is spent on what truly nourishes her — creation, connection, growth, and quiet presence. She no longer needs to center herself in every narrative or outsource responsibility for her happiness and emotional regulation.

This is the ultimate boon fully embodied: a woman who has reclaimed her life. Every day is lived on her own terms, with self-respect and respect for others. A heroine returned, not to demand the old comforts, but to inhabit the world — and herself — with unapologetic freedom and mature humanity.

Conclusion: The Self-Directed Woman Returns

The Womanomyth is now complete. The heroine who answered the Call, crossed the thresholds, endured the trials, atoned with the Mother, claimed the Ultimate Boon, and mastered both solitude and society now stands in the final freedom — the Freedom to Live.

This arduous journey demands real cost: the comfort of old protections, the illusions of prolonged dependence, and the warm anesthesia of a culture that encourages extended childhood. Yet it pays dividends in something far more precious: radical self-actualization, unshakeable inner authority, genuine accountability, and the rare freedom to live as a mature woman among equals.

No longer defined by victimhood or emotional centrality, she becomes the author of her own existence. She can enjoy deep solitude, form healthy relationships, pursue meaningful work, and engage the world — all while remaining grounded in self-respect and mutual respect with men and women alike. Yesterday’s chains and tomorrow’s fears lose their power. She lives here, now, fully present and sovereign.

The world continues its noisy dance, but the heroine sees it clearly: a stage, not a prison. She may engage it lightly when it serves, withdraw into enlightened solitude when it does not, and quietly model a better way for those ready to see it.

To every woman still hearing the Call: the path is real. The trials are necessary. The reward is a life of authentic freedom and shared humanity.

Step forward. The whale’s belly is not a tomb but a womb. On the far side of the return threshold waits the woman you were always meant to become — sovereign, responsible, and unmistakably your own.

In the last decade, “hypergamy theory” has become the default explanation for women’s preference for high-status men. In its evolutionary form, the theory argues that ancestral women who secured higher-resource mates improved their children’s survival through better nutrition, safer environments, and greater parental investment.

If true, female status preference should be tightly linked to reproductive motivation, and modern dating-up should therefore produce more babies, not fewer. At its core, hypergamy is fundamentally a theory about successful reproduction — not status-seeking in isolation.

Yet the data tell the opposite story. Fertility rates have collapsed, especially among educated and higher-earning women who are most active in the contemporary mating market. Many women pursue visibly higher-status men while showing little interest in turning those pairings into families. This mismatch suggests the popular “hypergamy” explanation has been stretched well beyond its evolutionary logic.

The evolutionary rationale for hypergamy weakens when the reproductive goal that supposedly drove it is absent or greatly diminished. In that light, what we are seeing today is not adaptive mate choice for offspring viability, but a culturally exaggerated drive for personal status elevation operating in a void of its own.

Subclinical narcissism offers a more coherent account. Personality research shows that narcissistic women are drawn to partners who enhance their social image, prestige, and self-esteem. High-status or highly attractive men function less as co-parents than as trophies — symbols of personal success that provide admiration and reflected glory for the women.

Rather than seeking affiliation or reproduction, these women prioritize self-enhancement and status elevation; the relationships often dissolve once the man’s utility for ego-enhancement fades, skipping the long-term investment in offspring that classic hypergamy theory requires.

The research quotations provided below illustrate this point. Collectively, they show that status-oriented mate choice need not be read as evidence of evolutionary hypergamy at all. When reproductive motivation is diminishingly low or absent, this behavior reflects an entirely different drive: not a modified form of hypergamy, but narcissistic self-enhancement.

These women are pursuing high-status men primarily as trophies to elevate their own image, prestige, and ego — not as providers for future children. This is not hypergamy simply decoupled from babymaking. It is an entirely different phenomenon — narcissistic self-enhancement in romantic disguise. Said differently: No babies? Not hypergamy.

“Narcissists are more likely to choose relationships that elevate their status over relationships that cultivate affiliation. For example, narcissists are keener on gaining new partners than on establishing close relationships with existing ones. They often demonstrate an increased preference for high-status friends and trophy partners, perhaps because they can bask in the reflected glory of these people.”¹
— Grapsas et al., 2020

“Narcissism has been linked with the materialistic pursuit of wealth and symbols that convey high status. This quest for status extends to relationship partners. Narcissists seek romantic partners who offer self-enhancement value either as sources of fawning admiration, or as human trophies (e.g., by possessing impressive wealth or exceptional physical beauty).”²
— Wallace, 2011

“Romantic partners were more likely to be seen as a source of self-esteem to the extent that they provided the narcissist with a sense of popularity and importance (i.e., social status). Narcissists’ preference for romantic partners reflects a strategy for interpersonal self-esteem regulation… This pattern of relating romantically may have some benefits (notably self-esteem) but may lack durability, particularly when the ability of the partner to provide self-esteem wears thin. For example, as clinicians have noted, a narcissist’s relationship with an attractive “trophy” spouse may end when that trophy ages or loses a prestigious job.”³
— Campbell, 1999

“Narcissists particularly look for in a partner are physical attractiveness and agentic traits (e.g., status and success). A narcissist’s ideal partner is like a narcissist’s ideal self (recall Freud’s comments): attractive, successful, and admiring of the narcissist. Indeed, in our research, narcissists report that part of the reason that they are drawn to attractive and successful partners is that these people are similar to them.”⁴
— Campbell, Brunell & Finkel, 2006

“Narcissists use close relationships largely for the purpose of gaining social status and self-esteem (Campbell, 1999). A good example of this can be found in narcissists’ reports of romantic attraction. Narcissists are particularly attracted to individuals who are (a) high in social status (e.g., successful, popular, and attractive) and can provide the narcissist with self enhancement via association, and (b) admiring and can enhance the narcissist’s self-views directly via flattery and attention. In contrast, narcissists typically report less attraction for partners interested in close, caring relationships.”⁵
— Tanchotsrinon, Maneesri & Campbell 2007

“Gold diggers were female, reckless (i.e., psychopathic), narcissistic, lived in larger cities, and students. Female, right-wing students scored highest in gold digging, consistent with increased access to resourceful partners… Its materialistic-exploitative behaviors mark gold digging as a fast life strategy, emphasizing short-term mating and resource-extraction. Yet, gold diggers seek re­sources (e.g., money, status) but not reproduction––requiring a nuanced life history strategy calibration via self-centered (i.e., narcissistic) behavior over reciprocal decisions.”⁶
— Freyth & Jonason, 2026

In the evolutionary playbook, hypergamy was never an end in itself. We should stop treating it as a cogent explanation when it so clearly functions as a “Just-So” story for a distinctly maladaptive phenomenon.

References:

[1] Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. (2020). The “why” and “how” of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 150-172.
[2] Wallace, H. M. (2011). Narcissistic self-enhancement. In: Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (Eds.) The Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Findings, and Treatments, 309-318.
[3] Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1254–1270.
[4] Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Narcissism, Interpersonal Self-Regulation, and Romantic Relationships: An Agency Model Approach. In: Vohs, K. D., & Finkel, E. J. (Eds.), Self and Relationships: Connecting Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes, 57–83.
[5] Tanchotsrinon, P., Maneesri, K., & Campbell, W. K. (2007). Narcissism and romantic attraction: Evidence from a collectivistic culture. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 723-730.
[6] Freyth, L., & Jonason, P. K. (2026). Mercenary predators: Individual characteristics of gold diggers. Personality and Individual Differences, 258, 113817.

Pleasure-seeking has long been a cornerstone of philosophical and psychological thought. From the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus to Sigmund Freud, the idea that humans are fundamentally driven by the pursuit of pleasure has shaped much of Western thinking. Freud crystallized this in his pleasure principle, stating, “What decides the purpose of life is simply the programme of the pleasure principle.”

However, mid-20th-century developments in psychoanalysis, particularly Object Relations theory, challenged this view. Pioneered by British psychoanalyst Ronald Fairbairn, Object Relations theory posits that the primary motivational force in human life is not raw pleasure or instinctual discharge, but the drive to form and maintain relationships with others—termed “object-seeking.”

Fairbairn’s Reorientation of Libido Theory

In 1944, Fairbairn articulated a significant departure from classical Freudian theory:

“The basic conception… is to the effect that libido is primarily object-seeking (rather than pleasure-seeking, as in the classic theory), and that it is to disturbances in the object-relationships of the developing ego that we must look for the ultimate origin of all psychopathological conditions.”

Fairbairn emphasized that libido is not primarily about gratifying biological drives through “erotogenic zones” but about establishing satisfactory relationships. Pleasure, in this framework, is a byproduct or a secondary mechanism used to mitigate failures in relational aims: “Explicit pleasure-seeking is thus not a means of achieving libidinal aims, but a means of mitigating the failure of these aims.”

This shift aligns with broader evolutionary insights. In evolutionary psychology and biology, strong pair bonds facilitate biparental care, kin support, and offspring survival—critical for humans given the extended dependency period of our altricial young. Without stable relational environments, paternal investment declines, and reproductive success suffers.

Graphic 1: The Relational Aim of Libido

The graphic illustrates this dynamic perfectly: sexual desire (or neediness) is highest in the seeking bond phase and naturally subsides as pairbond security is achieved.

Make-Up Sex and Hate Sex: Repairing the Relational Bond

A compelling real-world demonstration of Object Relations principles is “make-up sex,” or “hate sex”—intense sexual encounters following conflict or alienation. Far from being paradoxical, these experiences reflect the libido’s object-seeking nature. When a bond is threatened, sexual intimacy mobilizes hormonal mechanisms (including surges in oxytocin and vasopressin) to restore connection and security.

Fairbairn’s theory explains why sex is harnessed to repair failing relationships: it serves as a powerful avenue to reaffirm the bond when security feels tenuous. This is not simply pleasure-seeking but an instinctual attempt to reinstate a failing relational bond. The phenomenon provides strong proof-of-concept for the central thesis of this article: that sex primarily serves the creation and maintenance of relationships, rather than relationships existing merely as a vehicle for sex.

In other words, the sexual drive is fundamentally relational in its aim—oriented toward bonding and repair—rather than relationships being secondary to constant pleasure-seeking. This aligns with both clinical observations in Object Relations theory and evolutionary evidence showing that sexual behavior in humans is deeply integrated with attachment systems that promote long-term pair bonding and parental investment.

The Irony of “Spinning Plates” and Pickup Strategies

If Object Relations theory is correct—that male sexual neediness is fundamentally oriented toward securing a pair bond, after which the drive naturally attenuates—then modern “spinning plates” (maintaining multiple casual sexual relationships) does the opposite: it perpetuates and amplifies neediness.

Techniques designed to increase female attraction and facilitate short-term encounters keep the practitioner in a perpetual seeking state. This exploits the Coolidge effect—renewed sexual interest with novel partners, observed across species including humans—preventing habituation and sustaining high arousal through dopamine resets.

Biologically, this strategy correlates with elevated testosterone levels typical of single or low-commitment men, fueling a higher sex drive and restless seeking behavior. In contrast, stable pair bonds are associated with lower testosterone and greater contentment via oxytocin and vasopressin-mediated attachment.

Men in long-term relationships often experience a natural decline in spontaneous desire after the honeymoon phase due to familiarity, but they gain relational satisfaction that reduces compulsive “neediness.” Rapid variety, however, keeps the system in high mating-effort mode without the stabilizing effects of deep attachment.

Graphic 2: Sexual Neediness Levels by Group

The graphic summarizes sexual neediness across groups, with higher scores reflecting greater ongoing drive and seeking behavior, mapped against baseline testosterone dynamics:

• Healthy LTR: Low neediness (0). Secure attachment and moderate intimacy allow habituation and contentment.
• Incel: High (6). Frustrated seeking without outlets.
• Unhealthy LTR: Very high (7). Insecure bonds activate repair mechanisms like heightened desire.
• PUAs: Extreme (10). Perpetual novelty and spinning plates exaggerate testosterone-driven drive in a self-reinforcing loop.

These patterns are modulated by individual factors like age, health, and sociosexual differences, but the average trends hold.

Evolutionary Synthesis

From an evolutionary perspective, human libido evolved with pair bonding as a key adaptation. While short-term mating strategies offer reproductive benefits (especially for males via sperm competition and genetic diversity), the relational infrastructure of pair bonds supports the intensive parental investment required for human offspring survival.

Modern casual-sex cultures, exaggerated by dating apps and pickup culture, create a mismatch: they hijack novelty-seeking mechanisms (Coolidge effect, elevated T) in ways that sustain high sexual neediness without delivering the pair-bond security toward which the system is ultimately oriented. Practitioners may celebrate the cycle as victory, but Object Relations and evolutionary lenses suggest it often represents a self-perpetuating loop of unfulfilled relational aims.

In summary, while pleasure remains part of the human experience, Object Relations theory—bolstered by evolutionary biology—reminds us that our deepest libidinal aims are relational. Secure pair bonds represent not the end of desire, but its maturation from urgent seeking to stable attachment.

That said, men today are reluctant to trade the pleasure-seeking cycle for commitment, and with damn good reason. A large proportion of modern women are not pairbonding material – because they have been shaped by cultural trends that undermine loyalty, emotional stability, and companionate partnership. The prospect of commitment comes with real dangers of failure, and the potential rewards do not justify the risk if the woman lacks the qualities necessary for a secure bond. In such an environment, the “juice” is frequently not worth the squeeze.

This leaves men with a difficult but narrowly actionable path forward. As Paul Elam has long argued, genuine pairbonding is still possible, but it demands significantly greater effort in vetting and filtering. Only a shrinking minority of women today understand and are willing to invest in a loyal, companionate bond. So any success that a man might achieve requires rigorous discernment, strong personal boundaries, and a willingness to walk away from women who do not meet that standard.

Understanding this framework can help men navigate modern mating landscapes more consciously — whether choosing strategic singlehood, a more carefully selected commitment, or something in between — while remaining grounded in the fundamental relational purpose of libido.

References

1. Fairbairn, R. (1952). Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality. Tavistock Publications. (Especially pp. 82–83 on libido as object-seeking.)

2. Freud, S. (1991). Civilization, Society and Religion (Penguin Freud Library Vol. 12).

3. GoodTherapy.org. “Object Relations” entry.

4. Various supporting studies on the Coolidge effect, testosterone dynamics in pair bonds, and attachment hormones (e.g., reviews in Psychology Today, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Frontiers in Psychology, and related evolutionary psychology literature).

5. General evolutionary psychology sources on human pair bonding, biparental care, and mating strategies (e.g., work by David Buss, Helen Fisher, and others on attachment and reproductive success).

Based on conversations about the dowry ethos, the shortest description of it involves a twofold motive:

1. Men expecting women to come to the relationship table with a material/financial commitment, and

2. Rejection of the unbalanced romantic model that favors passion over pragmatic concerns.

________________________________________________

 

Footnote 1:  According to notable proponent of the dowry ethos ThisIsShah, the philosophy offers something beyond the typical manosphere talking points which in recent times have become tired and stale. He has excavated lost knowledge of marriage transactions in human history, a topic that has been well documented by anthropologists, especially from the 60’s and 70’s onward, and which includes information about marriage transactions such as the Dowry and Bridewealth (formerly Brideprice).

In The Economics of Dowry and Brideprice by Siwan Anderson we read:

“Most societies, at some point in their history, have been characterized by payments at the time of marriage. Such payments typically go hand-in-hand with marriages arranged by the parents of the respective spouses. These marriage payments come in various forms and sizes but can be classified into two broad categories: transfers from the family of the bride to that of the groom, broadly termed as “dowry,” or from the groom’s side to the bride’s, broadly termed as “brideprice.” Brideprice occurs in two-thirds of societies recorded in Murdock’s (1967) World Ethnographic Atlas of 1167 preindustrial societies. Conversely, dowry occurs in less than 4 percent of this sample. However, in terms of population numbers, dowry has played a more significant role, because the convention of dowry has occurred mainly in Europe and Asia, where more than 70 percent of the world’s population resides.”

Somehow the manosphere has managed to completely miss this information and what it means for relationships in the modern world. However, the trove of information – which includes academic/scholarly papers, newspaper articles, and media from different time periods – more than demonstrate, decisively and precisely, how the marriage market operated with regard to economics and the material concerns of both parties involved, suggesting that commensurate economic contribution toward relationships can happen today even if we do not wish to replicate older models and quaint customs precisely.

Footnote 2: Romantic love is based on a feudal model of men providing love service to women, with women expected to contribute little to a relationship other than natural beauty and innate moral purity. The romantic model is at odds with the traditional idea of women coming to the relationship table with a material contribution, and over time it tends to weaken the expectation of female contribution.

Other forms of love are sometimes conflated with the romantic model, loves that are more compatible with the idea of women contributing; these include loves such as storge (spousal and family affection), eros (sexual desire & pleasure), agape (selfless, charitable love), philia (friendship), and pragma (practical, pragmatic love as symbolized by dowry or other material offerings).

Freedom (Greek eleutheria) is also relevant to the formation of relationships today, as it underpins the freedom to choose a partner. The only freedom of choice in the romantic model, however, is the freedom for a woman to choose a vassal, and the freedom for a man to choose his domina. It’s a very narrow set of choices. Outside the romantic model, freedom of choice allows people to select from a far greater range of love-styles and qualities in a prospective partner.

“Dowry ethos” is a conceptual term, primarily used in discussions of gender dynamics, marriage markets, and critiques of modern romantic expectations. It refers to an underlying cultural principle of reciprocal value exchange in relationships: both partners (or their families) are expected to bring commensurate material, practical, or economic contributions to the “relationship table,” rather than one side bearing the full burden of provision.

It is explicitly differentiated from the literal historical/anthropological practice of dowry (a transfer of money, goods, property, or assets from the bride’s family to the groom or couple at marriage). The ethos is a broader attitude or norm about fairness and contribution, not a specific custom involving payment from the bride’s side.

Historical Practices of Dowry

Historically, dowry was a widespread custom in many Eurasian societies, especially those with intensive agriculture, private property, and patrilineal/patrilocal systems (e.g., parts of Europe, India, ancient Rome, Greece, and elsewhere). Key features include:

1. The bride’s family provided assets to the groom, his family, or directly to the couple. This could include land, cash, household goods, livestock, clothing (trousseau), or other resources. It was also common for young women to work and save money toward their own dowry before marriage, and married women often continued working for wages in order to contribute to the conjugal fund.

2. Purposes varied by context:

• To give the bride some economic security or inheritance portion (often controlled by the husband during marriage but reverting to her/children in cases of widowhood, divorce, or death).
• To secure a husband of commensurate status who could adequately provide for her.
• To equip the new household and support family formation.
• In some views, it compensated for the bride’s lower direct contributions to subsistence (e.g., in plough-agriculture societies where men’s labor dominated) or acted as female competition for high-value mates.

3. It was often tied to social norms of masculine provision: the groom/family offered ongoing economic support and protection, while the dowry helped balance or secure the arrangement.

4. Practices evolved; in some places it declined with modernization, cash economies, or legal changes, while in others (e.g., parts of South Asia) it persists.

Anthropologists like Jack Goody linked dowry to diverging devolution (property passing to both sons and daughters) in certain agricultural societies, contrasting it with bridewealth in others. It wasn’t universally “paying to offload a daughter” — interpretations include it as a form of pre-mortem inheritance for women or a conjugal fund.

Feminist critics sometimes frame historical dowry as patriarchal (treating women as burdens requiring compensation), while defenders note it typically empowered women with direct material security or reflected mutual commitment to the marriage and family investment.

Dowry Ethos (as Differentiated Concept)

The “dowry ethos” strips away the specific historical mechanics (no actual transfer from bride’s family to groom is required) and focuses on the principle of balanced contribution and assortative pairing:

• Women are expected to bring tangible value — material resources, practical skills/labor, fidelity, domestic contributions, or other assets — commensurate with what the man brings (resources, earning potential, provision, protection, status).
• Pairing should occur between partners of roughly equal “market” or contributory value. A woman with limited material/practical input would traditionally pair with a man of similar (modest) standing, not demand a high-provider without offering reciprocity.
• This ethos assumes relationships involve mutual investment and rejects one-sided entitlement. In traditional systems, it checked hypergamy (women seeking markedly higher-status men) by tying women’s options to what they (or their families) could offer in return.

In this framework, the ethos is “broadly understood” as a cultural expectation of fairness: “both partners should bring commensurate value… Under traditional systems, women were expected to contribute materially or through labor and fidelity.”

Key Differentiation and Modern Contrast

• Historical dowry = A concrete, often one-directional transfer of assets (bride’s side -> groom/couple), embedded in specific legal, familial, and economic systems.
• Dowry ethos = An abstract norm or attitude emphasizing reciprocity and matched value in mate selection and ongoing relationships. It doesn’t prescribe paying dowries today; it critiques situations where this balancing expectation has eroded.

Proponents argue that modern Western “romantic chivalry ethos” or unconditional “love” narratives have largely waived the contribution requirement for women. Men are still culturally (and often legally) expected to provide resources, protection, and emotional labor, while women’s hypergamous preferences face fewer checks. This creates asymmetry: women can pursue higher-value men without equivalent input, leading to entitled dynamics, provider burnout, or men feeling like “ATMs.”

The ethos is invoked to advocate for mutual standards — e.g., women demonstrating “something to the table” (career, skills, resources, low entitlement) rather than expecting provision based solely on romance, attractiveness, or traditional female roles without reciprocity.

In short: Historical dowry was a specific practice involving asset transfer; dowry ethos is the underlying idea of balanced, value-matched partnership that some argue has been selectively discarded in favor of female-favoring romantic ideals. The term highlights perceived imbalances in contemporary dating and marriage markets.

Academic definitions of romantic love portray it as a single, universal construct experienced identically by both sexes. This unitary framing is a serious misrepresentation. It erases the distinctly feudal dynamic that has always defined the tradition, bleaching its asymmetrical structure into a feel-good myth of mutual (read identical) behaviors, emotions and reciprocity.

In reality, romantic love is a dyadic cultural script – a single overarching construct built from two distinct, complementary roles. Unlike other forms of love such as eros (sexual desire), agape (charity/compassion), storge (bonded/familial affection), companionate love (pairbonding), philia (friendship), and pragma (pragmatic, material gestures of care) — each of which operates as a single construct enacted similarly by either sex — romantic love requires not one, but two separate sets of roles, each governing the expectations, behaviors, and moral obligations of one sex.

On the male side stands romantic chivalry: the active performance of proving oneself by service, protection, provision, and devotional elevation of the woman. This is the vassal’s role – deferential, sacrificial, and oriented toward earning favour.

On the female side stands romantic ennobling: the active claiming and performance of elevated, aristocratic status within the romantic dyad. She embraces and reinforces her position as the “Dame” or “midons” (my lord) – the ennobled figure who receives devotion while occupying the superior, sovereign place in the hierarchy. This is the lordly role transposed into the feminine — a role that persists today in the widespread feminist emphasis on women’s “status,” “esteem,” “worth,” “dignity,” and “respect” in heterosexual relationships, terms once reserved exclusively for nobles.

These two roles are not symmetrical. They are deliberately complementary in the feudal sense: his chivalric service is meaningful only because she performs and expects ennoblement. Together they form the complete script that Western romantic love has inherited from medieval courtly tradition, where the lady was addressed with masculine titles of lordship precisely to signal her exalted position.

Recognising romantic love as a dyadic construct rather than a unitary one restores analytical clarity. It explains why the experience, the expectations, and the moral economy differ so sharply between the sexes — a difference that the prevailing academic narrative works hard to obscure. Romantic love is not a gender-neutral emotion. It is a structured cultural system with two interlocking parts, each carrying its own distinct imperatives.

Since its invention in medieval Europe, the concept of romantic love has referred to a specific cultural template: a feudal-inspired dyad in which the man acts as a devoted servant (embodied in chivalry) and the woman is elevated to a pedestal traditionally reserved for a feudal lord. This structural relationship, adapted from feudal society and applied to intimate bonds, became the defining framework for romantic love. It spread globally and remains symbolically potent today—for instance, in the common image of a man kneeling on one knee to propose marriage, an act that implies the same roles between men and women even when not literally performed.

This core template—the feudal structure itself—is what distinguishes romantic love from other forms of affection. Over time, however, it has undergone what might be called category creep through its increasing association with two related but distinct elements:

1. The freedom to choose one’s love partner.
2. Sexual desire and activity.

Importantly, the sexual component was not inherent or necessary to the original model.

Courtly love (amour courtois), the direct precursor to what we call romantic love, was frequently and even ideally Platonic in nature. Troubadour poetry and chivalric literature often celebrated an elevated, non-physical devotion in which the man’s service and the woman’s pedestal remained pure; consummation was neither required nor always desired. Sex sometimes occurred as an additional element, but its presence or absence did not define the romantic construct. This historical reality demonstrates conclusively that sexual activity is merely an adjunct—something that may accompany the template but is not identical to it.

Because sexual desire is clearly an evolved human behavior, its frequent close proximity to the romantic template has encouraged academics and lay observers alike to interpret the entire phenomenon—including the cultural feudal template—as a biological universal rather than a historically specific construct. The result is a form of misplaced adaptationism: the assumption that because one component is innate, the whole package must be as well.

A Foundational Study and Its Limitations

A widely cited 1992 paper by William Jankowiak and Edward Fischer examined evidence of “romantic love” across 166 cultures and reported its presence in 147. Their criteria focused on generic features such as personal anguish and longing, love songs or folklore, elopements based on affection, and ethnographers’ reports. However, this definition notably omitted the feudal template—the man-as-vassal, woman-as-lord dynamic—that formed the heart of the European romantic love construct. Without that central element, what they described aligns more closely with broader passionate or pair-bonding experiences found across human societies than with romantic love in its historically specific sense.

Jankowiak and Fischer later acknowledged this distinction. In subsequent work and communications, they shifted to the more accurate term “passionate love” for their construct, recognizing that the original European romantic model was a unique cultural development that later spread worldwide, and that they had made a serious error to employ the phrase “romantic love” in their study. Their willingness to refine the terminology reflects intellectual honesty and humility.

Uncritical Reliance in Evolutionary Psychology

Despite these clarifications, some scholars continue to rely on the earlier framing. Steve Stewart-Williams, in his otherwise insightful book The Ape That Understood the Universe, relies on the Jankowiak and Fischer findings to make his conclusion without fully addressing the missing feudal component. He writes:

“And why, as far as we can tell, is romantic love found in all cultures? That’s right; contrary to stubborn anthropological myth, people everywhere fall in love. One line of evidence for this claim comes from the anthropologists William Jankowiak and Edward Fischer, who scoured the anthropological research on 166 historically independent cultures, noting down any evidence of romantic love that they came across: romantic poetry, elopement, all the usual symptoms. Their conclusion? Romantic love was unambiguously present in around 89 percent of cultures…

The question all these findings raise is a straightforward one: If romantic love is an invention of Western culture, why is it found in every geographical region, historical period, and ethnic group? The simplest and most plausible answer is that romantic love is not an invention of Western culture. Instead, the idea that romantic love is an invention of Western culture is itself an invention of Western culture, and a rather implausible one at that. Human beings were falling in and out of love for hundreds of thousands of years before we ever had Hollywood blockbusters or knights in shining armor. We’re just that kind of animal – the kind that falls in love from time to time.”

This passage illustrates a category error and equivocation that weakens the analysis. By folding evolved sexual urges (eros) together with the culturally constructed feudal template under the single label “romantic love,” the argument treats a composite as purely biological. The feudal metaphor—man in service to an elevated beloved—is not a universal biological reflex; it is a medieval European innovation that has since globalized. Conflating it with sexual desire risks overlooking the genuine cultural novelty involved and perpetuates imprecise scholarship.

That said, Stewart-Williams usefully distinguishes “romantic love” from “companionate love,” the steadier form of attachment that often follows the intense early phase and supports long-term pair-bonding. As he notes:

“But the end of the crazy, can’t-keep-your-hands-off-each-other phase doesn’t necessarily herald the end of love. Sometimes romantic love matures into a distinct form of love, which psychologists call companionate love. … Companionate love is a less exhilarating form of love than romantic love, but in many ways, it’s more real. With romantic love, or at least early-stage romantic love, we often don’t really know the person we fall in love with.”

This differentiation is valuable, though the broader point remains: precise definitions matter. Romantic love, properly understood as the feudal template adapted to intimate relations, is a cultural achievement with a clear historical origin—not a timeless biological given. Sloppy handling of these distinctions in academic work, even by otherwise capable researchers, perpetuates confusion and overgeneralization. Clearer categorization allows us to appreciate both the evolved foundations of human attachment and the culturally inventive ways societies have shaped them.

References

Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31(2), 149-155.

Stewart-Williams, S. (2018). The Ape That Understood the Universe: How the Mind and Culture Evolve. Cambridge University Press.

The following 2025 study of ‘The Woman King’ reveals the growth of gynocentrism & gamma bias in modern cinematic productions: Aris, Q., & Syam, E. (2025). Gynocentrism: Female Superiority Propaganda in The Woman King. Rainbow: Journal of Literature, Linguistics and Culture Studies, 14(2), 191-198.